Tag Archive: queen elizabeth

Well it’s about time that Kate Middleton gave birth. The name hasn’t been relished yet but they had a boy and it weighs 8 pound 4 ounces. Everyone has been waiting anxiously for the baby’s arrival (or in my mom’s case for the baby’s gender to relished). I just hope the baby is ready because he’ll be the most photographed baby ever. So what is ya’ll take on Kate and William’s new bundle of joy? please comment and let me know but please no negative comments.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his governament and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.

Jesus replied, ” ‘ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greastest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your meighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

PERTH, Australia (Reuters) – Centuries of British royal discrimination came to an end Friday after Commonwealth leaders agreed to drop rules that give sons precedence as heir to the throne and bar anyone in line for the crown from marrying a Roman Catholic.

The 16 countries that have Queen Elizabeth as their monarch agreed to the changes put forward by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had called the rules of succession outdated.

“The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic, this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we’ve all become,” Cameron told reporters.

The agreement came on the sidelines of a Commonwealth summit presided over by the Queen in the remote west Australian city of Perth.

Current succession rules dating back to 1688 and 1700 were designed to ensure a Protestant monarchy, and bar anyone in line to the throne from marrying a Catholic.

Only a Catholic link is barred. There are no restrictions on marrying members of other religions or atheists.

The rules have their roots in a turbulent period of English history dating back to Henry VIII’s break with Rome in the mid- 16th century. The laws were imposed at a time when Catholics were seen as a threat to the state.

However, the British monarch remains head of the Church of England.

The leaders also agreed to drop the practice of giving precedence to male over female heirs to the throne, regardless of age.

The issue has been brought into focus by this year’s wedding of Prince William, second-in-line to the throne, and Kate Middleton.

Without a change, their first son would eventually become king even if he had an older sister.

A group will now be set up to coordinate the necessary legislation for the changes.

In Britain, all is not as it seems, nor ever has been. As they viewed the preparations for the royal wedding, with all its pomp and circumstance, the non-British seemed to willingly buy into the idea that the monarchy – and popular reverence for it – has been a fixed point in the British firmament for centuries, a source of stability however the nation’s fortunes may have ebbed and flowed.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The monarchy does not symbolize some deep sense of tradition; on the contrary, it has long been a contested element of what it means to be British. In the 17th century, revolutionaries turned the world upside down and deprived Charles I of his head more than 100 years before the French did the same to Louis XVI. The Crown was restored in 1660, but 28 years later another King was sent packing into exile. By the early 19th century, the scandal-stained Hanoverian dynasty was widely loathed. In his great sonnet “England in 1819,” the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley described George III and his sons as “An old, mad, blind, despised and dying king, – / Princes, the dregs of their dull race, who flow/ Through public scorn – mud from a muddy spring.” (See pictures of Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding day.)

The monarchy was saved and re-invented by the sense of duty of Victoria – just 18 when she ascended to the throne in 1837 – and her remarkable German husband Prince Albert. During Britain’s period of high imperialism and global economic dominance, it suited both the old landed grandees and those enriched by the world’s first modern economy to elevate the Crown into a symbol of changelessness in a society that was changing at breakneck speed.

Victoria’s halo sanctified the reigns of her son Edward VII and grandson George V, a man whose principal pastimes were stamp collecting and slaughtering game birds on his Norfolk estate. But such splendid dullness could not be maintained. Though the reassuring presence of Elizabeth II, who was 9 when her grandfather died in 1936, has indeed been a stabilizing constant in British life, the years since George V’s demise have seen regular eruptions in British attitudes toward the monarchy – all taking place against a backdrop of quiet, but continual and profound, constitutional change.

1937
Not the Wedding They Wanted
On June 3, 1937, at a chÁteau in france, the Duke of Windsor – who had reigned for 10 months as Edward VIII before abdicating in favor of his brother – married the woman he loved, Wallis Simpson, an American from Baltimore and, in 1936, the first woman to be named Time’s Person of the Year. (The piece was distinctly catty; Simpson was said to have “resolved early to make men her career, and in 40 years reached the top – or nearly.”) The wedding was a low-key affair, and after the ceremony one guest described the duke as having “tears running down his face,” perhaps out of relief that the whole squalid business was over. If so, it was a sentiment his people shared. A vain, self-centered man who – to put it at its most charitable – was far too prepared to be used by Nazi sympathizers, Edward would have been a disastrous monarch as Britain fought for its survival in World War II.

1947
Relief from Hard Times
Instead of Edward, the nation was blessed to have on the throne George VI, a man of palpable decency, whose wife Elizabeth was widely popular.

On Nov. 20, 1947, their daughter Elizabeth, the heiress to the Crown, married her distant cousin Philip Mountbatten in Westminster Abbey. In the run-up to the wedding, its expense – shades of 2011 – was highly controversial. Exhausted and broke after six years of war, Britain was going through a period of penny-pinching austerity and food rationing, which made the question of a sugary wedding cake politically sensitive. Gifts piled in, from diamond-encrusted wreaths to a piece of cloth that Mohandas Gandhi had spun himself. (Elizabeth’s grandmother thought it was a loincloth; she was not amused.)

Perhaps because it offered a welcome relief from hard times, the wedding was enormously popular. Less than five years later, while in Kenya, Elizabeth was told that her father had died, aged just 56. TIME named her Person of the Year in 1952, with a tone quite different from the one it had used for her aunt. Elizabeth’s significance, we said, was “that of a fresh young blossom on roots that had weathered many a season of wintry doubt.”

It’s for historians to judge whether the Queen has lived up to such promise, but there is little doubt that, partly by assiduously avoiding any controversy, she did much to restore the monarchy’s luster. Then along came a young, wounded, starstruck, beautiful girl from Norfolk. She changed everything. Again.

1981
A Shaft of Light and Gaiety
If you weren’t there, it’s hard to imagine just how grim a place Britain was in the summer of 1981. Race riots convulsed its cities. The economy was in ruins, with large parts of the industrial north of England and the Midlands reduced to rusted wasteland. The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was not just disliked by half the population; with a vehemence that still seems shocking 30 years on, it was positively loathed.

Into this desperate gloom, the wedding of Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, to Diana Spencer, just 20 – and a very innocent 20 at that – projected a shaft of light and gaiety. (That endless train behind her dress! Kiri Te Kanawa’s voice!) Whatever happened in the half soap opera, half tragedy that followed, the sheer glamour of the wedding endowed Diana with a genuine popularity – no, love – that she never lost. (See pictures of Princess Diana.)

The point about Diana that the royal family did not understand when she was selected for the Prince’s hand was that, like everyone else, she would grow up. The ingenue fairy-tale princess became a confident (albeit devious) young woman, comfortable with the happily mixed-up, multicultural, undeferential society that Britain had become, passionate about controversial causes such as the fights against AIDS and land mines and – in the end – openly contemptuous of the serial indignities to which the family into which she had married subjected her. Even had she lived, Diana’s story would have changed attitudes to the monarchy. The revelation that her husband had continued an affair with his true love (and now second wife) Camilla Parker Bowles while married to Diana – coupled with a rash of royal divorces – replaced the allure and mystery of the monarchy with something much more tawdry. And then Diana died.

1997
The Long Week of Grief
Nobody – nobody – was ready for what happened to Britain in the week after Diana was killed in a Paris car crash. A nation that was supposed to be emotionally stunted, with stiff backbones and stiffer upper lips, descended into the sort of public grief normally reserved for the last act of second-rate Italian operas – except that it was genuine. Stuck at their home in Scotland, the royals seemed woefully out of touch with the sentiments of their people. Only at the last minute did the Queen walk into the crowds that were mourning Diana outside Buckingham Palace and show that she shared the national sense of loss.

The criticism of the royal family that week did not lead to a sustained increase in republican sentiment in Britain. To the contrary: once the Queen returned to London, the numbers of those saying they wanted to ditch her dropped to historic lows. But that extraordinary week changed the nature of the relationship between Crown and people forever. The crowds mourning Diana were not subjects. In a way that the revolutionaries of the 17th century would have understood, they were defining for themselves what they expected of a family, one of whose members was their head of state, and compelling that family to act accordingly. It was as if modern Britain were saying, “We get it. We’re more than happy to have you around. But you do the job on our terms.”

2002
A Link to the Past Is Broken
Before that sentiment could solidify into a modern conception of the monarchy, however, there was one more sad piece of business to attend to. On March 30, 2002, aged 101, George VI’s wife and Elizabeth II’s mother – the Queen Mum – died. Hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets of London to see her coffin. The Queen Mum was a direct link to the tumultuous days of the abdication, to “the war.” (There is only one war in British speech.) But she was a link, also, to a Britain, and monarchy, that is long gone. Deeply conservative, she was a blue-blooded member of the aristocratic class that had once provided wives for royal males. No more. There have been eight weddings in the Queen’s immediate family since 1947, but in only one case – that of Prince Charles – did the royal marry into a titled family. The Windsors have become middle class.

Along with that social transformation has come a constitutional one. Since 348 people signed a document demanding reform called Charter 88 (I was one of them, I am very proud to say), Britain has gone through more constitutional change than in any other period in the past 300 years. Subnational parliaments have been established in Wales and Scotland, London has an elected mayor, a charter of human rights has been constitutionally protected, a new Supreme Court has been set up, taxpayer support for the royals has been reduced, and soon, Parliaments will sit for a fixed term. The Queen remains head of state, but in any real sense, she is the least powerful monarch Britain has ever had. You won’t have heard that among the hushed voices of the global TV commentators who prattle on about Britain’s wonderful sense of tradition, but it is true.

If you looked away from the screen for a moment, you probably missed it. It was a quick smooch. Kate turned to her groom, said something with a smile, and the prince reached over, rather hurriedly, and gave her a very quick kiss.

Maybe that’s why he kissed her again.

The second kiss came just before the Royal Air Force flyover. Another first on a historic day: two kisses on the Buckingham Palace balcony by a newly married royal couple.

“I am not going to do that caper. They are trying to get us to kiss,” he said to Diana.

Diana’s reported response: “Well, how about it?” The prince hesitated, then said “Why ever not?”

And this image lives on as proof.

Sadly, the marriage did not live up to the sweetness of that first public kiss. And because of that, there is a lifetime of hope wrapped up in today’s royal smooch. The world wishes so much better for this young couple. They have come to marriage older, wiser, and by all accounts, truly in love.

The grand balcony has been the stage for vaulted royal appearances since 1851, when Queen Victoria stepped out onto it during celebrations for the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, London. The Great Exhibition was the first in a series of World’s Fair displays of culture and industry and attended by the likes of Charles Darwin and Charlotte Bront.

Princess Anne was the first of Queen Elizabeth’s newly wed children to appear on the balcony with her new spouse, Captain Mark Phillips, in 1973. But they did not kiss.

Neither did Prince Edward and Sophie Wessex on their 1999 wedding day, though Prince Andrew did follow his elder brother’s lead when he kissed the Duchess of York on the balcony on their wedding day in 1986.

Etiquette experts consider it bad formfor anyone but the bride to wear white on the wedding day. Not the Middletons. Kate’s sister Pippa wore a white maid of honor dress on the world’s biggest stage.

[Photos: See more of Pippa’s dress]
Like Kate’s wedding dress, Pippa’s gown was designed by Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen. The gown featured short sleeves, a low-cut neckline, and was form-fitting. Immediately following Pippa’s appearance at Westminster Abbey, web searches soared.

A blog from the “Today” show explains that a white dress for non-brides isn’t as rare as it used to be. Bridal designer Reem Acra told TODAY.com: “I like the idea that (Kate’s) sister is wearing white… It makes the whole thing more thematic and looks clean and modern.”

Pippa’s dress had the same button detail and lace trim as Kate’s wedding gown, according to PopSugar. In addition to looking beautiful, Pippa also did an excellent job with the young bridesmaids and took good care of her sister’s train.

Below, some other buzzy moments to remember…

Kate remembers William’s name
The curse is broken! Kate remembered William’s full name! It might sound like a small victory, but it’s far from it. William’s full name is quite a mouthful. For the record, he is William Arthur Philip Louis. Imagine trying to remember that with two billion people watching.

The bride also wore white. Chris Jackson/Getty Images In royal weddings past, Princess Diana and Princess Sarah Ferguson messed up when asked to recite their groom’s full name. According to Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to the queen, Diana mixed up the order of Charles’s names. Diana had a pretty good excuse: Charles’s full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. Same deal with Fergie; she accidentally repeated Prince Andrew’s middle name.

Not so with Kate. She nailed William’s full name. A good omen if ever there was one.

Kate Middleton‘s delicate figureKate Middleton caught the experts’ eyes for her dress as well as her slender physique. Barbara Walters began buzzing after she saw Middleton exit. “She’s very slim. Look at that waist!”

[Photo gallery: Kate’s wedding look]James Middleton: expert readerKate Middleton‘s brother, James, gave a reading at the royal wedding, and though he would have had every excuse to be nervous or fumble over a phrase, the 24-year-old nailed the passages from Romans 12:1,2, 9-18. Pausing at the right times, never mispronouncing a word, and never losing his place, James was perfect with his high-profile task.

Michael Middleton’s butter fingers
The father of the bride did a wonderful job of walking with his beautiful daughter down the aisle and standing at attention at the front of the church. He did make one small mistake, though. Right when he arrived at Westminster Abbey, he dropped his hat. Oops. It was all aces from there. No harm, no foul.
Etiquette experts consider it bad formfor anyone but the bride to wear white on the wedding day. Not the Middletons. Kate’s sister Pippa wore a white maid of honor dress on the world’s biggest stage.

[Photos: See more of Pippa’s dress]
Like Kate’s wedding dress, Pippa’s gown was designed by Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen. The gown featured short sleeves, a low-cut neckline, and was form-fitting. Immediately following Pippa’s appearance at Westminster Abbey, web searches soared.

A blog from the “Today” show explains that a white dress for non-brides isn’t as rare as it used to be. Bridal designer Reem Acra told TODAY.com: “I like the idea that (Kate’s) sister is wearing white… It makes the whole thing more thematic and looks clean and modern.”

Pippa’s dress had the same button detail and lace trim as Kate’s wedding gown, according to PopSugar. In addition to looking beautiful, Pippa also did an excellent job with the young bridesmaids and took good care of her sister’s train.

Below, some other buzzy moments to remember…

Kate remembers William’s name
The curse is broken! Kate remembered William’s full name! It might sound like a small victory, but it’s far from it. William’s full name is quite a mouthful. For the record, he is William Arthur Philip Louis. Imagine trying to remember that with two billion people watching.

The bride also wore white. Chris Jackson/Getty Images In royal weddings past, Princess Diana and Princess Sarah Ferguson messed up when asked to recite their groom’s full name. According to Dickie Arbiter, former press secretary to the queen, Diana mixed up the order of Charles’s names. Diana had a pretty good excuse: Charles’s full name is Charles Philip Arthur George. Same deal with Fergie; she accidentally repeated Prince Andrew’s middle name.

Not so with Kate. She nailed William’s full name. A good omen if ever there was one.

Kate Middleton‘s delicate figureKate Middleton caught the experts’ eyes for her dress as well as her slender physique. Barbara Walters began buzzing after she saw Middleton exit. “She’s very slim. Look at that waist!”

[Photo gallery: Kate’s wedding look]James Middleton: expert readerKate Middleton‘s brother, James, gave a reading at the royal wedding, and though he would have had every excuse to be nervous or fumble over a phrase, the 24-year-old nailed the passages from Romans 12:1,2, 9-18. Pausing at the right times, never mispronouncing a word, and never losing his place, James was perfect with his high-profile task.

Michael Middleton’s butter fingers
The father of the bride did a wonderful job of walking with his beautiful daughter down the aisle and standing at attention at the front of the church. He did make one small mistake, though. Right when he arrived at Westminster Abbey, he dropped his hat. Oops. It was all aces from there. No harm, no foul.